HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-07_PR Comm Packet
Roseville Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting
Tuesday October 7, 2014
6:30 P.M
.
Roseville City Hall
2660 Civic Center Drive
AGENDA
1. Introductions
2. Public Comment Invited
3. Approval of Minutes of August 5, 2014
4. Approval of Minutes of September 10, 2014 Tour
5. Discuss Preliminary Park Building Operations
6. City Council Joint Meeting Preparation
7. Park and Recreation Renewal Program Status
8. Staff Report
9. Other
10.Adjournment
Roseville Parks and Recreation
“Building Community through People, Parks and Programs”
www.ci.roseville.mn.us
Be a part of the picture….get involved with your City….Volunteer.
For more information, contact Kelly at kelly.obrien@ci.roseville.mn.us or 651-792-7028.
or check our website at www.cityofroseville.com
Volunteering, a Great Way to Get Involved!
MEMORANDUM
To:Parks and Recreation Commission
From:Lonnie Brokke
Date:September 22, 2014
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Re: Notes for Commission Meeting on
Introductions
1.
Commissioners and staff will be introduced.
Public Comment Invited
2.
Public participation and public comment is encouraged. Included in your packet is an e-mail
from Jackie Schroeder regarding pathways and sidewalks and snow plowing. A letter was
sent acknowledging receipt as her preferred method of contact.
Approval of Minutes of the August 5, 2014Meeting
3.
Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of August 5, 2014.Please be prepared to approve or
amend.
Requested Commission Action
:Approve/amend meetingminutesof August 5, 2014.
Approval of Minutes of the September 10, 2014Meeting
4.
Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of September 10,2014. Please be prepared to approve
or amend.
Requested Commission Action
: Approve/amend meetingminutesof September 10,
2014.
Discuss Preliminary Park Building Operations
5.
As the replacement park buildings arewell under construction, staff is in the process of
defining operational policies and procedures. As they are being established, it is important
to consider consistency with other city facilities. In your packet is a preliminary outline that
continues to be developed and will be reviewed at your meeting. Please review and be
prepared to offer input and advice.
Requested Commission Action
:Review and provide input and advice.
Prepare for Joint Meeting with the City Council
6.
At your joint meeting with the city council inJune(minutes included),it was suggested and
agreed that the commission have more regular contact(quarterly)with the city council.
Time has been placed on the city council Agenda for Monday, November 17, 2014 for this
to occur. This is an opportunity for the commission to provide updates, discuss specific
topics of interestsandseek guidance.
Some topics of future interest may include the deer population, communty center(included
in your packet is a community center section from the master plan), volunteers, Evergreen
Park and the Historical Society use, golf course operations, Emerald Ash Borer or other
topics of interest to the commission, city council and community.
Requested Commission Action
: Review and discuss topics and approach for joint
meeting.
Park and Recreation Renewal Program Status
7.
Included in your packet is a matrix of Renewal Programprojects and current status. It is
work in progress and will be a tool designed to keep the commission, city council and
community up to date over the next couple of years. Please let us know if you feel it is
helpful or what improvements can be made.
Any additional progress on the Renewal Program will be reported at the meeting.
Comments, questionsand suggestions from the commission are welcome and encouraged.
Requested Commission Action
: Discuss progress and provide input into the projects
status matrix.
Staff Report
8.
Possible Future Agenda Topics:
1.Deer Population Discussion
2.Cedarholm Golf Course
3.Evergreen Park – Historical Society
4.Community Center
5.Volunteers
6.Emerald Ash Borer
7.Natural Resource efforts
Parks and Recreation Youth Commission Representative
One youth representative applicant has beenreceived. We have contacted the
applicant to determine a time for Chair Holt and I to discuss the position with the
applicant. This will be done as soon as possible.
Other
9.
Adjournment
10.
Kara Thomas
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Sunday, September 14, 2014 2:54 PM
To:*RVParksCommission
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Parks and Recreation Commission
Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactParksandRecreationCommission
Subject::IwouldliketocommentonthemaintenanceofsidewalksinRosevilleduringoursnowywinters.
Name::JackieSchroeder
Address::2646MatildaSt
City::Roseville
State::MN
Zip::55113
Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontactinformationinthefieldsbelow.:
LetterPhoneNumber::
EmailAddress::
PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:MyfamilyusesthesidewalkonthesouthsideofCountyRd.Cona
regularbasis.WeuseittogettoandfromtheAcornParkpathways,toshopatthestoresatCountyRd.CandRiceSt.,
andtocatchthecitybusesthatrundownRiceSt.andstopatCountryRd.C.Duringthewintermonthsafterthesnow
hasstartedtofall,wefindthesidewalkalongCountyRd.Cverydangeroustouse.Theequipmentbeingusedtoclear
snowfromthesidewalkisnotcleaningthesidewalkdowntotheconcrete.Overtimetheseveralinchesofsnowlefton
thesidewalkstartstomelt,peoplearewalkingonthewetsnowleavingdeepfootprintsinthewetsnow,thesnowand
waterfreezesthusmakingitverydangeroustowalkonthesidewalk.Anotherhazardisthatthecountycomesby
severaltimesandplowsCountyRd.CandRosevilledoesnotcomebyaftereverycountyplowjobandplowthesnow
thecountyhaspushedontothesidewalkagain.Thisgoesonallwinter.Thistypeofsnowremovalisnotacceptableto
uswhenweshovelandplowourownpersonalsidewalksanddrivewayandshouldnotbeacceptabletoyouoncity
ownedsidewalksthatweusetogetaround.
DuringwinterwepersonallychoosetowalknorthdownMatildaSt.toIonaandeastonIonatoWoodhillandsouthon
WoodhilltocutthroughtheNorthHeightsChurchparkinglotandwalktheirsidewalktothebusstopsandstoresat
CountyRd.CandRiceSt.Unfortunatelyweshouldnothavetowalkonprivatepropertytogetwhereweneedtogo
whenthecityhassidewalks.Wechoosetowalkthequietercitystreetswithoutsidewalksforourexercisewalksduring
winteraswell,astheyarecleaneddowntotheblacktopandnotdangerous.Ihaveseenmanypeoplewalkingdown
CountyRd.Cintheroadwaybecausetheyarenotabletousethesidewalk.Thisisverydangerousinitselfasnumerous
carsarenotmovingoverforthem,thesnowispiledsohighfromtheplowingofCountyRd.Cthattheycouldnotjump
outofthewayiftheywantedtoifcarswouldgettooclosetothem.Somepeopleareevenchoosingtowalkwithtraffic
(evenmorestupidontheirpart)andnotintotrafficsotheycanatleastseecarscomingatthemandtrytogetoutof
theirway.
Occasionally,whenwewantpeaceandquietduringourwinterwalks,wewillstruggleourwayovertoAcornParkaswe
knowthepathwaysareclearoncewegetintothepark.Thatbringsupanothermatter,whyarethepathsinsideAcorn
Parkplowedbeforethesidewalkstogettotheparkpathsareplowed,evenforthefirsttime?
MyfamilyhasbroughtthesidewalksmattertotheattentionofbothDuaneSchwartzandLonnieBrokke,buthavebeen
toldtheequipmentthecityusestocleanthesidewalkalongCountyRd.Cwillnotcleandowntotheconcretewithout
1
damagingthecuttingedgeontheirequipment.ItdisturbsusthatsidewalksarenowbeinginstalledalongCountyRd.B2
andCountyRd.Dintimetomakethosestretchesofsidewalkdangerousforwalkersthiswinteraswell.Ifeelthereisa
lawsuitwaitingtohappensomedaybecausesomebodyiskilledorinjuredbecauseourcitydidnotmaintainthe
sidewalks.Wecannotaffordthis.Residentshavebeentoldthatthecitywillplowthesidewalksinwinter,butwhatgood
doesitdotospendtheĻƒƦƌƚǤĻĻƭtimeanddepartmentmoneywhenyoucannotplowthemsopeoplecansafelyuse
them.
Iwouldliketosuggestthecityallowtheiremployeestoremovethewearshoesonthesnowblowerandplow
equipmentandreplacethecuttingedgewhentheywearout,orbuytherightkindofequipmentthatwouldallow
employeestoplowthesidewalksandremoveallthesnowfromthem.Pluscoordinatewiththecountywhentheyplow
CountyRd.CandRosevillethenreplowthesidewalksafterthat.Citiesthatmaketheresidentsclearsnowfrom
sidewalksinfrontoftheirhomesdonotallowthistypeofbehaviortohappenandyouƭŷƚǒƌķƓƷallowthistohappenon
sidewalksthecitytakescareofeither.
MaybeweshouldrethinkwhatthesuburbsareandnotmakeuslikeSt.PaulorMinneapolis.Someofusmovedoutto
Roseville,formallythelandofnosidewalks,togetawayfromallthat.Ifwearegoingtohavesidewalks,andcontinueto
putmoresidewalksin,thecityneedstohavetheproperresourceslikeequipment,time,andmoneytomaintainthem.
Itisourhopeyouwillrethinkhowthiswholeprocessisnotworkingwellandchangethings,likedonotconstructany
moresidewalks,ifyoudoatleastmakethemwidersotruckscanplowthem,haveproperequipmenttoplowthem
properly,etc.sowecanusethesidewalksyoukeepinstallingsafelyallyearround.Welovethesidewalksduringspring,
summer,andfallandhopetoonedayenjoythemduringwinteraswell.
AdditionalInformation:
Formsubmittedon:9/14/20142:53:53PM
SubmittedfromIPAddress:75.168.194.169ReferrerPage:http://www.cityofroseville.com/index.aspx?NID=76
FormAddress:http://www.cityofroseville.com/Forms.aspx?FID=135
2
0 ±ª² £ 2¤¢±¤ ³¨® $¤¯ ±³¬¤³
lonnie.brokke@ci.roseville.mn.us
651-792-7101
September 19,2014
Jackie Schroeder
2646 MatildaStreet
Roseville, MN 55113
DearJackie,
I wanted to let you know that your e-mail dated September 14, 2014to the Parks and Recreation
Commission has been receivedand will be included in their documentation.
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Community input is valuable to the Commission
as they continue to reviewdesired and necessaryimprovements to the Roseville Parksand
Recreation System programs and facilities.
Sincerely,
Lonnie Brokke, C.P.R.P.
Director of Parks and Recreation
ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
1
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST5, 2014
2
ROSEVILLE CITY HALL~6:30pm
3
4
PRESENT:
5Azer, Diedrick, Gelbach, D. Holt, M. Holt,Newby, Stoner
ABSENT:
6Doneen, Wallnotified staff about beingunable to attend
STAFF:
7Anfang,Brokke
8
9
INTRODUCTIONS
101.
11
ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT
122.
13No Public Comment.
14
APPROVAL OF MINUTES –JUNE 3,2014MEETING
153.
Commission Recommendation:
16
17Minutes for the June 3,2014meeting were approved unanimously.
18
FOLLOW UP to the JOINT MEETING with the CITY COUNCIL
194.
20Commission Chair D. Holt looked for feedback from Commissioners on the joint meeting held
21earlier this summer.
22M. Holt questioned whether the Commission ever got an answer from Council Members
23on if they would like the Commission to continue to explore and gather information on a
24park board structure.
25Commissioners responded that they felt that a number of issues/items they have
o
26been exploring recently were still unanswered and they were uncertain to what
27level they should continue to invest time and energy.
28D. Holt responded that the Council did request the Parks & Recreation
o
29Commission meet with the Council quarterly to share additional information and
30findings.
31D. Holt also suggested that these meetings did not need to involve the entire
o
32Commission only those working on a specific goal/task.
33D. Holt also commented on how there is a lot going on with Parks & Recreation
o
34right now, and the most timely topic might be the community center with how it
35fits into recent survey findings, parks & recreation master planand potential future
36implementation phase. A key piece of information for the community center
37discussion is the financial aspects and this might be the best place for the
38Commission to focus their work at this time.
39Brokke offered to pull together informationon past Community Center efforts and
o
40current survey findings to help frame the discussion.
41T. Newby added that he felt the Council was looking for more concrete
o
42information that could help guide their discussions and decision process.
43Brokke will work with City Manager Trudgeon & Commission Chair D. Holt to
o
44schedule a jointmeeting.
45
PARKS AND RECREATION RENEWAL PROGRAM STATUS
465.
47Brokke updated the commission on Renewal Program Projects:
48Work is progressing on the Park Buildings in Lexington, Sandcastle and Villa Parks.
49The Friends of Lexington Park will be adding a climbing feature to the play area in
o
50Lexington Park. They have a good portion of the funding secured but are still
51looking for community partners or others to help cover the costs of this addition. It
52is hoped that the Climbing Rock will be installed in time to coincide with the
53opening of the new park building this fall.
54D. Holt inquired into how the Best Value Process has been working.
o
55Brokke responded that so far the process is working good and has brought
56contractors together, as it should.It is new to all so will continue to
57evaluate.
58Playgrounds at Howard Johnson, Langton Lake @ County Road C2 and Materion Parks
59Brokke shared pictures from the community celebrations at each park recognizing
o
60the completion of the playgrounds.
61Tennis Court Renovation
62Work has begun on the courts at Howard Johnson and Pocahontas Parks. These
o
63court projects will be using a process that reclaims some of the court surface for
64the base of the renovated courts.
65County Road B2 Sidewalk
66Concrete has been poured from Lexington to Victoria.
o
67Skating Center Exterior Painting & Improvements
68Contractor has been secured and exterior painting is expected to take place in late
o
69August.
70Nature Center
71Work has begunon the exterior.
o
72Boardwalk is currently being built off-site and will be installed this fall and winter.
o
73Lake Bennett Lighting
74Work will begin toward the end of August.
o
75Field Improvements at Evergreen Park and Central Park Victoria
76Work is scheduled to begin next month on 2 fields at Evergreen and 4 fields at
o
77Central Park.
78Disc Golf Improvements
nd
79First nine holes will be worked on this fall with the 2nine being completed in the
o
80spring.
81Natural Resources
82Contractor working on additional grants to help expand Renewal Program funding
o
83for Natural Resource projects.
84Irrigation Improvements
85Staff will being bringing this package back to the Council at an upcoming meeting
o
86due to the selected contractor not being able to work out an agreement because
87they were not able to secure the required 3-year bond.
88
CONSIDER TOUR in SEPTEMBER
896.
90Commission agreed to adjust their traditional meeting night to Wednesday, September 10 and
91meet earlier at 5:30pm to accommodate their annual park tour.
92
STAFF REPORT
937.
94Anfang reportedon recent communication efforts:
95Shared a draft copy of the sign that will be posted at each park building site. Sign will
96include sketch of building exterior, floor plan, contact information and web location for
97more information.
98Social Media Update. Recent Facebook posts have received good response and are
99demonstrating the potential to reach a strong number of community members. 2 posts
100added between July 31 & August 2 had reached over 1350 people.
101Roseville will be launching a new website this fall. Staff are really excited about the
102potential the new site will have and look for improved usability.
103Parks & Recreation will be hosting a community playground build at Langton Lake Park
104(adjacent to the ball fields) on September 6. Kelly O’Brien, Roseville Volunteer
105Coordinator, is working to secure volunteers for this event.
106
107Brokke reported;
108Youth Commissioner, Chloe Boehm has graduated. We will be working to fill the student
109representative position over the next couple of months.
110Council Updates:
111Staff are working to address Council’s request to outfit new buildings with
o
112electronic access capabilities, security cameras and network connectivity. Staff
113will be taking network connectivity information to the Council for their
114consideration next week.
115Staff have continued discussions on the Mounds View school district property adjacent to
116Autumn Grove Park. Council will be asked to extend the original purchase agreement to
117continue due diligence to learn more about the ground conditions.
118The City Manager has presented his budget, items of interest related to Parks &
119Recreation include;
120Recommendation of a full-time forestry position with an emphasis on tree
o
121preservation and work incollaboration with Community Development.
122$25,000 to address EAB issues.
o
123Additional funding to support maintenance needs for the new park buildings.
o
124
8.OTHER
125
126M. Holt updated the Commission on the upcoming FORParks event, Tapped and
127Uncorked. 20 beverage distributors have agreed to attend as well as 7 food vendors. The
128evening will featuremusic by High & Mighty and other activities.
129D. Holt recognized the recent community survey that shows a very favorable response to
130questions addressing Parks & Recreation initiatives.
131Brokke mentioned that he will provide the Commission more information on the
o
132survey findings at an upcoming meeting.
133
134Meeting adjourned at9:25pm
135
136Respectfully Submitted,
137Jill Anfang, Assistant Director
ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
1
DRAFT TOURMINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER10, 2014
2
ROSEVILLE CITY HALL~5:30pm
3
4
5
PRESENT:
6Doneen,Gelbach, D. Holt, M. Holt,Newby,Wall
ABSENT:
7Azer, Diedrick, and Stoner notified staff about beingunable to attend
STAFF:
8Anfang,Brokke, Evenson
9
10
WELCOME
111.
12
TOUR OF PARKSITES
132.
14Commission membersand staff met at 5:30 pmat Roseville City Hall for aparkand facility tour.
15
16Focusing on the Renewal Program, the following sites were visited: Roseville Skating Center,
17Veterans Park, Howard JohnsonPark, Autumn GrovePark, OasisPark, Langton LakePark,
18SandcastlePark,LexingtonPark,Villa Park, Central Park Victoria BallfieldsandtheB2/Victoria
19Street sidewalks.
20
21Tourended and the Parks and Recreation Commissionadjourned at7:45pm
22
23Respectfully Submitted,
24Lonnie Brokke, Director
City of Roseville
1
Roseville
Community Facilities
Draft Document
2 Roseville Community Facilities include a wide range of facility options;
3 Roseville Skating Center
4 Olympic Banquet Room
o
5 Rose Room
o
6 Fireside Room
o
7 Raider Room
o
8
9 Roseville Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse
10
11 Harriet Alexander Nature Center
12 Main level – Gathering Place & Discovery Lab
o
13 Lower Level – Classroom & Kitchen Lab
o
14
15 Roseville Park Buildings
16 Lexington Park
o
17 Gathering Room
18 Multipurpose Room
19 Autumn Grove Park
o
20 Gathering Room
21 Multipurpose Room
22 Rosebrook Park
o
23 Gathering Room
24 Oasis Park
o
25 Gathering Room
26 Villa Park
o
27 Gathering Room
28 Sandcastle Park
o
29 Gathering Room
30 Acorn Park
o
31 Gathering Room
32 Muriel Sahlin Arboretum
o
33
34 Central Park Shelters
35 FORParks Shelter
o
36 Foundation Shelter
o
37 Jaycees Shelter
o
38 Lions Shelter
o
39 Victoria Ballfields
o
40
41 Roseville City Hall
42
43 Roseville community gathering places provide for a multitude of meeting, social and activity opportunities.
44 The purpose of these facilities is to provide space usage for;
45 Scheduled activities for Roseville Parks & Recreation
46 Scheduled activities for City of Roseville departments
47 Scheduled activities for Roseville community groups
48 Scheduled activities for Roseville residents
49 Facility rental for individual, local organization & business community use
50 Additional activities approved by the parks & recreation department
1 | Page
9.29.2014 Draft
51 Roseville Community Facilities Policies
52
53 A.Purpose
54 Roseville Community Facilities shall be used to provide community social, recreational & public interest
55 activities and to provide financial support for the operations of Roseville Parks & Recreation divisions
56 (Roseville Skating Center, Cedarholm Golf Course, Harriet Alexander Nature Center, and Recreation)
57
58 B.Scheduling
59 The scheduling policy shall include the following priority ranking:
60 a.City of Roseville activities
61 b.Monday through Thursday, Roseville community groups (groups affiliated with Roseville Parks &
62 Recreation or who have 50% or more Roseville members and have scheduled at least 3-months in
63 advance). On occasion, community groups may be re-scheduled to another facility with at least
64 2-weeks notice. (These relocated groups are not charged for their facility use)
65 c.Friday through Sunday, rental groups
66 d.Friday through Sunday, community groups scheduled more than 1 week in advance
67
68 C.Hours of Operation
69 Roseville Skating Center rooms may be rented from 8am to 1am unless otherwise authorized by
70 the Director of Parks & Recreation (or designee).
71 Cedarholm Golf Course may be rented from ???? to ???? unless otherwise authorized by the
72 Director of Parks & Recreation (or designee).
73 Harriet Alexander Nature Center may be rented from 8am to 1am unless otherwise authorized by
74 the Director of Parks & Recreation (or designee).
75 Roseville Park Buildings may be rented from 8am to 1am unless otherwise authorized by the
76 Director of Parks & Recreation (or designee).
77 Central Park Shelters may be rented from 9am to 10pm unless otherwise authorized by the
78 Director of Parks & Recreation (or designee).
79 Roseville City Hall may be rented from 8am to 10pm unless otherwise authorized by the Director
80 of Parks & Recreation (or designee).
81
82 D.Staffing
83 Adequate and appropriate staff will be provided to insure cleanliness, safety and customer satisfaction.
84 This may include regular, temporary, contract employees or volunteers. Staffing may not be included for
85 non-fee events; this shall be determined by the Director of parks & Recreation (or designee).
86
87 E.Rental Rates
88 Facility fees and charges are reviewed on an annual basis as part of the City of Roseville budget process.
89 Fees are set with consideration to the overall “Roseville Community Facilities” group and local market fee
90 base. Facility charges are meant to contribute to the direct costs of operation.
91
92 There shall be two categories of rates; (1) Roseville residents and Roseville businesses and (2) all others.
93
94 F.Liability
95 The permit holder shall be liable for all conduct of their group. This includes any damage, loss or breakage
96 as a result of this conduct. Groups may be required to provide a certificate of insurance naming the City of
97 Roseville as additional insured.
98
2 | Page
9.29.2014 Draft
99 G.Rental Deposit, Final Payment, Damage Deposit, Key Deposit & Refund Policy
100 Deposit, payment and refund policy are specific to each venue and include department commonalities.
101
102 Roseville Skating Center:
103 A reservation is not guaranteed until a deposit of 50% of the room rental cost is received.
o
104 Reservations will not be accepted without the required deposit.
o
105 The balance of rental fee is due no less than fourteen (14) days prior to the event.
o
106 The renter may cancel a reservation by giving written notice to the Roseville Skating
o
107 Center.
108 If a written notice is received thirty (30) days or more prior to the date of the event, 50%
o
109 of the deposit will be refunded.
110 A damage deposit is due no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the event.
o
111 Pending a post-event review by staff, the deposit will be refunded within 10 days of the
o
112 event.
113 The Director of Parks and Recreation (or designee) may waive the damage deposit.
o
114
115 Cedarholm Golf Course:
116
117 Harriet Alexander Nature Center:
118
119 Roseville Park Buildings:
120 Payment in full is required at the time of reservation.
o
121 $7 administrative fee is charged for any changes made after the original rental permit has
o
122 been issued
123 Refunds, less a $10 administrative fee are issued on cancellations made 46 or more days
o
124 prior to scheduled reservation
125 50% refund will be issued for cancellations made 30 or more days prior to scheduled
o
126 reservation
127 No refunds will be issued for cancellations made less than 30 days prior to scheduled
o
128 reservation
129 Refunds granted for weather conditions when deemed severe (e.g. tornado, excessive
o
130 snow)
131 A damage deposit is due no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the event.
o
132
133 Roseville Park Shelters:
134 Payment in full is required at the time of reservation.
o
135 $25 key deposit due at time of reservation.
o
136 Key deposit refunded following the timely return of the key
137 $7 administrative fee is charged for any changes made after the original rental permit has
o
138 been issued
139 Refunds, less a $10 administrative fee are issued on cancellations made 46 or more days
o
140 prior to scheduled reservation
141 Refunds, less $35 for half day, $45 for full day fee, will be issued for cancellations made
o
142 11-45 days prior to scheduled reservation
3 | Page
9.29.2014 Draft
143 No refunds will be issued for cancellations made 10 or fewer days prior to scheduled
o
144 reservation
145 No refunds issued for weather conditions other than those deemed sever (e.g. tornado)
o
146
147 Roseville City Hall:
148
149 H.No Tobacco or Vapor Use
150 There will be no use of tobacco or vapor products at any City of Roseville Community Facility. This is
151 consistent with City of Roseville Ordinance.
152
153 I.Alcohol Policy
154 Alcohol policies are specific to each venue and include department commonalities.
155
156 Roseville Skating Center: The City of Roseville allows liquor to be dispensed within the Roseville
157 Skating Center under the following conditions:
158 Beverage alcohol can be served and consumed in the community rooms only when
o
159 approved by the Director (or designee) of Parks and Recreation. Absolutely NO ALCOHOL
160 is allowed outside the community rooms. The no alcohol areas include the, Arena, OVAL
161 and all lounge and locker room areas. Beverage alcohol can be dispensed only to person's
162 twenty-one years of age or older that are attending the event for which the liquor is
163 being served.
164 Any deviation from the above policy will result in the forfeiture of all fees and permanent
o
165 suspension from using the Skating Center facilities. Any violation of this policy and other
166 Roseville, State of Minnesota or Federal laws by the caterer may result in a cancellation of
167 the contract with the caterer. Any caterer with a state license or a liquor license in a
168 community that physically adjoins Roseville may serve alcohol. A copy of the legal license
169 and dram shop insurance must be on file with the Roseville Skating Center 2 weeks prior
170 to the event
171 At all events where alcohol is served, an off duty Roseville Police Officer must be hired and
o
172 in attendance from the time the bar opens until it closes and all alcohol is either
173 consumed or disposed.
174 In addition, the renter will pay the hourly costs of the Police Officer. Payment will be in
o
175 the form of Cashier’s Check, Money Order or Cash.
176
177 Cedarholm Golf Course:
178
179 Harriet Alexander Nature Center:
180 At this time alcohol is not permitted at the Nature Center
181 Roseville Park Buildings:
182 At this time alcohol is not permitted in Roseville Park buildings
183
184 Roseville Park Shelters:
185 Most alcohol products are not permitted in Roseville parks. At the time of reservation, a special
186 use permit may be requested allowing 3.2% beer in shelters during rental period.
187
4 | Page
9.29.2014 Draft
188 J.Kitchen/Kitchenette Policy
189
190 K.Other
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
5 | Page
9.29.2014 Draft
238 2015 Park Building Fee Structure
239
240 A.Lexington & Autumn Grove Park Building
241 Gathering Room Occupancy
242 48 seated at tables
243 60 classroom
244 75 not seated, reception style
245
246 Multipurpose Room Occupancy
247 ?? seated at tables
248 ?? classroom
249 ?? not seated, reception style
250
251 Entire Facility Occupancy
252 ?? seated at tables
253 ?? classroom
254 ?? not seated, reception style
255
256 Facility Amenities Include
257 Kitchenette with Microwave, Refrigerator, serving counter with ample receptacles
258 (Kitchenette available with Gathering Room use and Entire Facility Use)
259 WiFi
260 60” video monitor
261 Gas fireplace
262 Tables & Chairs
263 Outdoor patio seating
264
265 B.Rosebrook Park Building
266 Gathering Room Occupancy
267 40 seated at tables
268 55 classroom
269 65 not seated, reception style
270
271 Facility Amenities Include
272 Kitchenette with Microwave, Refrigerator, serving counter with ample receptacles
273 WiFi
274 60” video monitor
275 Gas fireplace
276 Tables & Chairs
277
278 C.Oasis, Sandcastle, Villa Park Building
279 Gathering Room Occupancy
280 32 seated at tables
281 50 classroom
282 60 not seated, reception style
283
284 Facility Amenities Include
285 Kitchenette with Microwave, Refrigerator, serving counter with ample receptacles
286 WiFi
287 50” video monitor
288 Gas fireplace
289 Tables & Chairs
6 | Page
9.29.2014 Draft
290 Outdoor patio seating
291
292 D.Acorn Park Building
293 Gathering Room Occupancy
294
295 E.Muriel Sahlin Arboretum Building
7 | Page
9.29.2014 Draft
Resident Resident
Rental Rate Rental Rate Rental Rate Rental Rate
Mon - Thurs Mon - Thurs Fri - Sunday Fri - Sunday
Park Buildings
Lexington Park $85/2 hours $65/2 hours $95/2 hours $75/2 hours
Autumn Grove Park $175/5 hours $125/5 hours $195/5 hours $150/5 hours
EntireFacility $20/additional hour $18/additional hour $20/additional hour $18/additional hour
Lexington Park $60/2 hours $50/2 hours $70/2 hours $60/2 hours
Autumn Grove Park $135/5 hours $95/5 hours $150/5 hours $125/5 hours
Gathering Room $20/additional hour $18/additional hour $20/additional hour $18/additional hour
Lexington Park $40/2 hours $25/2 hours $45/2 hours $35/2 hours
Autumn Grove Park$75/5 hours$55/5 hours$85/5 hours$50/5 hours
Multipurpose Room $20/additional hour $18/additional hour $20/additional hour $18/additional hour
Rosebrook Park $60/2 hours $50/2 hours $70/2 hours $60/2 hours
Gathering Room $135/5 hours $95/5 hours $150/5 hours $125/5 hours
$20/additional hour $18/additional hour $20/additional hour $18/additional hour
Oasis Park $50/2 hours $40/2 hours $60/2 hours $50/2 hours
Sandcastle Park $115/5 hours $90/5 hours $135/5 hours $105/5 hours
Villa Park $20/additional hour $18/additional hour $20/additional hour $18/additional hour
Gathering Room
Acorn Park $25/2 hours $20/2 hours $30/2 hours $25/2 hours
Gathering Room $50/5 hours $40/5 hours $75/5 hours $60/5 hours
$10/additional hour $8/additional hour $18/additional hour $15/additional hour
Muriel Sahlin Arboretum $25/2 hours $20/2 hours $35/2 hours $30/2 hours
Event Staging Rooms $50/5 hours $40/5 hours $80/5 hours $75/5 hours
$12/additional hour $10/additional hour $18/additional hour $15/additional hour
Central Park Shelters
ForParks Shelter
Foundation Shelter
Victoria Shelter
Lions Shelter
Frank Rog Amphitheater
CP Muriel Sahlin Arboretum
Arboretum Grounds
Shirlie Klaus Pavilion
8 | Page
9.29.2014 Draft
Resident Resident
Rental Rate Rental Rate Rental Rate Rental Rate
Mon - Thurs Mon - Thurs Fri - Sunday Fri - Sunday
Roseville Skating Center
Cedarholm Golf Course
Harriet Alexander Nature Center
Roseville City Hall
9 | Page
9.29.2014 Draft
Roseville, MN - Official Website
Mayor Roe noted that this would leave the CU language requirement intact at this time; and
requested staff to return with additional information and potential updating of Tables of Use at a later
date.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:45 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 6:48 p.m.
10. Presentations
10. Presentations
b.Parks and Recreation Commission Joint Meeting with the CityCouncil
Joint Meeting with the CityCouncil
b.Parks and Recreation Commission b.Parks and Recreation Commission
Mayor Roe welcomed commissioners and recognized Parks & Recreation Commission Chair Dave
Holt. Commissioners in attendance included: Chair Holt, Commissioners Lee Diedrick, Randall
Doneen, Jerry Stoner, Mary Holt, Nolan Wall, Philip Gelbach and Terrance Newby.
Various attachments were provided as part of the background and discussion items, including:
Attachment A (Goals 2013-2015); Attachment B (City Attorney Opinion dated 3/14/14 -Park Board
Legislation); Attachment C (Research and analysis of a Park Board dated 5/7/13); Attachment D
(SWOT analysis report on Park Board dated 5/6/14); and Attachment E (Park and Recreation
Commission Meeting Minutes dated5/6/14).
Chair Holt advised that each commissioner would be speaking on various joint discussion topics as
listed in the RCA.
Volunteer Coordinator/Enhanced Volunteer Participation
Commissioners Lee Diedrick and Mary Holt thanked the City Council for hiring Volunteer Coordinator,
opining that it was great timing as the Parks Renewal Program was initiated, anticipating great
results from coordinating volunteer efforts.
Collaboration with Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC)
Commissioner Doneen reported on the meeting of a subgroup of P & R and PWETC commissions to
discuss pathway extensions, and the work done by the PWETC to build on the original 2008 Pathway
Master Plan, along with those needs identified as part of the park constellations during the Parks
Master Plan process.
Commissioner Doneen noted that it was interesting to see the difference in ranking trail and pathway
priorities based on two different sets of criteria; with both groups in support of trails on County Road
B2 and the trail (shoulder) connection west of Cleveland Avenue along County Road B.
Commissioner Doneen opined that overall it was a good collaborative effort and he appreciated
working with the PWETC.
Communication Efforts
Commissioner Gelbach noted that he had met with Communications Manager Garry Bowman and
Assistant Parks Director Jill Anfang, as well as attending a meeting of the Community Engagement
Commission and discussions with Commissioner Gary Grefenberg of that group, and would continue
to follow their meeting minutes. Commissioner Gelbach stressed the importance of communication
efforts inincluding everyone in what was being done, and looked forward to a goodrelationship with
these parties.
Commissioner Gelbach advised that he would like the Parks & Recreation Commissioners to meet
more often with the City Council, similar to a schedule like the Housing& Redevelopment Authority
(HRA), on a quarterly basis if possible to enhance that communication and provide more timely
reports.
Chair Holt concurred, noting it went beyond communications, but would keep the City Council in the
loop and up-to-date, as well as keeping the Commission on task as activities begin to move forward
at a fast pace, allowing for course corrections as needed.
Parks and Recreation Renewal Program
With recent package approval by the City Council, Commissioner Stoner asked that they continue to
provide feedback (e.g. wireless communications and access considerations) to tell the Commission
their areas of interest.
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=1785&PREVIEW=YES
Roseville, MN - Official Website
Commissioner Stoner thanked the City Council for their attendance and support at the recent Parks
Renewal Program Kick-off Event; and asked that they continue to alert the Commission to any
questions and/or comments.
Natural Resources Program including Forestry
Commissioner Doneen noted the advantages of tying together the Master Plan volunteer projects,
volunteer coordinator, and natural resource programs of the community. As an example,
Commissioner Doneen addressed the recent Buckthorn removal project at Reservoir Woods, and
removal of brush for shipping. While a small project and not well-advertised with the Commission for
some reasonfailing on every communication resource available to them, Commissioner Doneen
noted that over twenty volunteers still showed up to help. Commissioner Doneen opined that this
was indicative of the importance the community placed on their natural resources in area parks and
Master plan efforts to-date.
Commissioner Doneen noted that this created a concern he?d heard from the community of the need
for management of those natural resources in the City environment, which they had not found active
or adequate to-date; and therefore the inclusion in the Parks Renewal Program package of a specific
program and the need for their restoration.
Commissioner Doneen advised that he?d long advocated that natural resource needs be funded
annually to avoid big time expenses or their further degradation, through effective capitalization.
Commissioner Doneen asked that the City Council give that serious consideration moving forward,
opining that some of the City?s most valuable assets are its trees and forest, specifically the current
dangers to Ash Trees, and the need to remove diseased trees, but also replace them not just for
aesthetics, but also for their benefits for energy conservation, soils and water quality. Commissioner
Doneen suggested that proactive planning be done and monies set aside annually as originally
intended. Commissioner Doneen respectfully asked that the City Council include natural resources in
their long-term capital improvement program (CIP).
Commissioner Doneen noted that staff had done a good job of leveraging the Department of
Agriculture for funding, but in the Commission?s dual capacity as the City Tree Board, they
recommended moving forward from the basic Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) plan; and ramp up and plant
trees in advance of any infestation. Commissioner Doneen suggested that the City move from its
limited forestry efforts with a one part-time forestry employee, and opined that it would prove a wise
investment to increase the position to serve as a general resource management person and provide
expertise with tree preservation as the City redevelops parcels with existing mature trees. As the
Tree Board, Commissioner Doneenstated that they would be more than willing to engage with the
Planning Commission in cross-efforts and endeavors for a reasonable tree preservation plan.
Councilmember Willmus asked Commissioner Doneen if, in his involvement with the Natural
Resources and Trail System (NRATS) portion of the Renewal Program if he saw continued work with
the PWETC on some issues (e.g. water quality and tree preservation), recognizing that there were
commissioners on the PWETC that were passionate about those topics as well.
Commissioner Doneen recognized that potential, but having worked with that group already, opined
that his best sense was that a specific charge should be provided rather than an ongoing
relationship, whether with the Parks & Recreation, PWETC, and/or Planning Commission, and at the
discretion of the City Council for a specific task and recommendation.
Chair Holt concurred, noting that the NRATS was looking for a more proactive approach and specific
direction from the City Council to develop action steps.
Community Center
Commissioner Terrance (Terry) Newby noted that there had been considerable discussion in the past,
including public surveys in 2011 and 2014, all identifying strong public support for the idea of a
community center.
Commissioner Newby opined that the next step for the Commission was guidance from the City
Council as to whether they were charged with moving forward to pursue this further, or if it should
remain on the back burner as not being a top priority. Given the expanse of the issue and amount of
time it could consume, Commissioner Newby sought direction in relationship to the other priorities of
the Commission at this time.
Over time, Councilmember Willmus noted that the City Council was aware of the interest and survey
data providing a fairly consistent message from the community for a community center.
Councilmember Willmus advised that he'd be interested in learning more about how the City would
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=1785&PREVIEW=YES
Roseville, MN - Official Website
propose to close the operational funding gap. Even with the City of Shoreview and Maplewood
community centers, and their business models, Councilmember Willmus noted the annual financial
gap (e.g. $300,000 for Shoreview Community Center) and how those gaps could be addressed if the
project were to move forward; or how to offset that gap to keep the facility going.
Councilmember McGehee noted that, as long as she'd been a resident, this had been an issue; and
that was the reason for her being outspoken with the Parks Renewal Program, that the buildings
should have been funneled into a community center for one building that was available and
convenient for all residents. However, since that wasn't done, Councilmember McGehee noted that
now instead of one area, there were six separate buildings to support, operate and maintain, even
though she didn't hear that preference expressed by taxpayers and survey data. Councilmember
McGehee opined that she couldn?t see much hunger from thetaxpayers for more bonding or
increased taxes following the most recent bonding effort.
Having talked to the City of Shoreview about their apparent annual funding gap, Councilmember
McGehee advised that she understood that it was a deliberate attempt to keep their membership at a
price point so all residents could belong, and to continue to leave it as is and provide public support
to promote those efforts. Councilmember McGehee opined that this discussion should have occurred
earlier to respond to the community's wants, needs and expectations for a communitycenter versus
the buildings being constructed. While not having heard from the community at large,
Councilmember McGehee opined that the 2014 survey results would indicate to her that the natural
resource component was the second highest, as in the 2011 survey as well; and many things now
being financed are related to maintenance issues that have been sorely neglected to-date; and
reiterated her previous concerns that a maintenance plan was needed going forward.
Councilmember Laliberte recognized that this had been talked about for a long time; but noted that
everyone envisioned a community center differently as to what it offered. While survey respondents
indicate they want a community center, Councilmember Laliberte asked what they actually wanted,
since some of those amenities may already be available in the community but not used sufficiently.
In talking to a representative from the City of New Brighton recently, CouncilmemberLaliberte noted
that they were looking at major improvements and investments to their community center, as they
were finding that they lacked amenities, causing the community to go to LA Fitness, and other nicer,
newer facilities. Councilmember Laliberte suggested that Roseville already had four community
center-type buildings that are underutilized, and when someone wants a community, there was a
need to determine what features they were seeking. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she
needed a clearer picture of that, and such information would prove helpful to her future decision-
making about a community center.
Councilmember Etten noted that discussion on how to fund a community center came up a few years
ago, with the actual construction discussed through a local sales tax option, which has since filtered
away. Councilmember Etten stated that he looked at long-term costs differently than the actual
construction of a community center; with additional information needed on how to put the pieces
together. As part of the Master Planning process, Councilmember Etten noted that some
components were looked at, but there was no formal survey about what pieces were most valued by
residents (e.g. indoor walking track); and while some of those amenities may already be in place in
other facilities, recognized that some may also have certain limitations (e.g. walking track at the
OVAL). Councilmember Etten opined that the important thing was to nurture all ages in the
community in different ways and bring them together in a common space.
Mayor Roe echoed comments of his fellow Councilmembers, noting the difference in the upfront cost
for construction and ongoing operating cost, while also understanding the high potential for a subsidy
for long-term maintenance and upkeep and understanding overall benefits to the community.
Regarding the City?s financial picture, Mayor Roe noted that the community had just begun paying
for the Park Renewal Program bonds; however, conversely they were 3-4 years from paying off the
City Hall/Public Works Building improvement bonds, which may create a potential fund to cover other
infrastructure needs. As a way to address local sales taxes, Mayor Roe noted that the legislature
looked at regional benefits in providing tax levy support; and suggested that shifting the OVAL to
that regional support as a regional facility may open up more funding to operate that and shift
available funding to a community center.
Mayor Roe suggested that the Commission take those things brought forward tonight by individual
Councilmembers, with the charge for them to come up with more concrete answers to look at more
seriously in an effort to understand the financial impacts to residents and businesses in the
community.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested having discussions with communities surrounding Roseville that
had community centers and/or private enterprises providing the preferred amenities, and determine
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=1785&PREVIEW=YES
Roseville, MN - Official Website
how to partner with them, or avoid competing with those private entities. Councilmember Laliberte
again opined that the past needs of the community may be met with the new park buildings under
construction.
In speaking for senior citizens in the community, Councilmember McGehee opined that they didn't go
to the private entities, but more often went to the community centers in Maplewood or Shoreview
that were more geared to the older community with classes specific to their comfort level, further
opining that those needs were not being met in the commercial environment.
Chair Holt, in recognizing the public engagement discussions through the Master Plan process,
admitted that it wasn't easy to define what actual amenities were desired, since there was a
multitude of interests. In addressing costs, Chair Holt advised that the Commission, as part of the
Park Renewal Program, had looked at them quite extensively, and the cost of a community center as
envisioned was more than the entire bonding program. Not to discount the desire and/or need for a
community center, Chair Holt realistically advised that there was no fundingavailable for one, and
providing a community center was not as easy as we?d like it to be, with so many generations in the
community needing to be satisfied.
Given the extensive work required, Chair Holt asked that the City Council provide direction or a
charge if they wanted the Commission to further study this and return with that information.
Regarding the maintenance plan comments by Councilmember McGehee, Chair Holt advised that this
was an important piece of the Renewal Program to maintain what was being constructed. Chair Holt
advised that theCommission had no intention of not providing for such a maintenance plan, which he
hoped the City Council would support, to address planning and capitalization efforts to avoid what led
to the degradation of existing facilities in the first place by lack of support. Chair Holt advised that
those numbers were being developed and would be put together as part of an upcoming annual and
long-term CIP.
Local Option Sales Tax
Chair Holt noted that this had been brought to the Commission in the past as a goal and as a
potential funding for a community center. Chair Holt advised that the Commission was again seeking
guidance from the City Council as to whether pursue the legislative process, which was also time-
consuming. If the City Council wanted the Commission to look at it further this year, Chair Holt
asked that they provide specific direction to the Commission as a request for more information.
Park Board Consideration
Chair Holt noted that the City Council had tasked the Commission several years ago to review and
consider a Park Board versus a Commission, which had taken two years to accomplish (Attachment
C -research and analysis of a Park Board dated May 7, 2013).
Commissioner Wall addressed this issue, including the necessary steps to establish a Park Board and
the powers governing such a board under MN Statute, as detailed in the March 14, 2014 City
Attorney opinion (Attachment B). Commissioner Nolan further referenced their discussion
(Attachment D entitled, "Discussion regarding the legislative action to change from a commission to
a board," dated May 6, 2014); and the subsequent motion passed unanimously that same date by
seven Commission members in attendance.
Commissioner Nolan noted that this would be a significant and involved process; and asked for the
City Council's consideration, or any request for additional information.
Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Commission for their work to-date, and information she?d
received from watching their meetings and the information provided by the Commission, recognizing
that it was well thought out. With all that being said, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was
still hesitant about creating a Park Board due to the creation of a separate taxing authority and
further removed one step from residents for non-elected officials to make decisions. Councilmember
Laliberte noted that she understood the rationale based on past history of why such a board was
desired, but remained hesitant. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she?d prefer to meet more
often with the Commission as suggested to stay on top of things of concern to them as a starting
point if it was the desire of the City Council rather than establishing Park Board. Councilmember
Laliberte opined if by meeting more often, especially with initiation of the Park Renewal Program
projects, it would avoid the reason why a $19 million Park Renewal Project was necessary to address
things done being done when they should have been done.
Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte's comments for meeting more often,
stating that she would not favor a Park Board at this time for many of those same reasons, for the
need for the City Council to retain that direct relationship with residents and avoid the autonomy of a
Board and its own taxing authority. Councilmember McGehee opined that parks are a resource for
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=1785&PREVIEW=YES
Roseville, MN - Official Website
the entire community, and when the Master Plan process was underway, stated that she personally
supported a referendum and opined that the City failed its residents in not pursuing a referendum.
Even though 3,000 people participated in the Master Plan process, Councilmember McGehee noted
that this was less than 10% of the overall Roseville population; with the 2014 community survey
indicating that 70% of the respondents didn?t know about the Park Renewal Program, even though
there were residents and the reason for them not using the parks might mean that their needs are
not being met even though a large expenditure of public money had been made in the park system.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she felt strongly that more public airing of the Renewal Program
was needed to determine what the real issues were, but what was being done now and the
subsequent maintenance needed for those buildings, were not addressed or supported in either the
2011 or 2014 community surveys. Councilmember McGehee stated that she would like to meet
more often and have more detail on the projects underway to address the different points of view of
individual Councilmembers, and to have a give and take discussion about projects and ongoing
maintenance, allowing the Commission and City Council to keep track of resident needs and the use
of public funds to meet those needs.
After having participated for years in the public airing of issues in his former role on the Parks &
Recreation Commission, Councilmember Etten opined that nothing in Roseville?s history had been as
well-vetted as this Park Renewal Program process. Councilmember Etten opined that to state that it
hadn't gone through a public process was not correct. Councilmember Etten admitted that he had
been caught off guard by community survey responses about their perceived lack of knowledge
about the Renewal Program, but while not sure what had led to that, suggested that it may have
been the label of the program from ?Park Master Plan? to ?Park Renewal Program.? Given the
number of meetings held incommunity sectors, and additional educational pieces and meetings
around the program, Councilmember Etten expressed confidence that the process had been thorough
and informative community-wide.
Specific to the creation of a Park Board, and the many discussions to-date, as well as requirements
under the Optional Plan B City Government of Roseville, Councilmember Etten recognized that there
would be a rigorous process to move such an effort forward. Councilmember Etten suggested the
potential for partnering with aneighboring city (e.g. Falcon Heights and/or Lauderdale) to create a
regional board, or partnership of the City and School District for joint facilities, but across levels of
government and jurisdictions; giving consideration to the use of local sales taxes for that regional
effort. Councilmember Etten opined that this would serve in a grander way to bring lots of pieces
together to make it happen, and get a Park Board operational to work jointly with joint funding
available.
Councilmember Willmus concurred with the comments of Councilmember Etten, noting that the Park
Board concept originated during the Park & Recreation Master Plan process; and noted his
enthusiasm to look at the concept and how it worked in other communities, and how it may provide a
different path to follow. However, based on the process outlined in tonight?s meeting materials,
Councilmember Willmus advised that it involved a totally different path for implementation than he
originally thought. Councilmember Willmus advised that he found itinteresting to hear comments
from his colleagues comparing this to creation of the HRA, since similar insecurities and hesitations
were brought up in creating that body as well. However, Councilmember Willmus noted that many
good things that had come from that collaborative planning effort that the City Council would have
been hard pressed to accomplish, and had become a great advantage to the City and its residents.
Recognizing that there were many pros and cons to creation of such a Board, Councilmember
Willmus noted that he disagreed that there may be less accountability, since even the HRA "similar to
a Park Board" came to the City Council to approve its levy, which was the City Council's ultimate
control measure. Councilmember Willmus stated that he'd like to explore further whether a
partnership with other community was a feasible avenue to consider, as suggested by
CouncilmemberEtten.
As theCommission frequently heard the City Council speak on operational efficiencies, and in looking
to potential partnerships with other communities beyond shared programming currently done, and as
the City continued to struggle with the question of a community center, Councilmember Willmus
suggested opportunities to look to Shoreview or Maplewood for shared opportunities as well.
Councilmember Willmus thanked the Commission for their work to-date on the Park Board issue and
discussions, and opined that it should remain on the table as a potential option down the road.
Since this Park Board issue came up, Mayor Roe stated that he'd struggled with it, even though
appreciating the work, research and comparisons done by the Commission to-date. In using the HRA
comparison as a model reference, Mayor Roe opined that was a minor portion of the City's annual
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=1785&PREVIEW=YES
Roseville, MN - Official Website
budget and staffing needs compared to the significant chunk of the budget represented by the Parks
& Recreation Department.
Mayor Roe stated that he also had concerns with such a significant part of the City's operations not
being under direct control of the City Council, City Manager and the process used to manage the rest
of the City's government. Mayor Roe noted that he found this troubling, not because he didn?t think
the Park Board would do a good job, but for him it created too much distinction that would create
more problems than it solved. However, Mayor Roe stated that he did like the idea of joint powers
agreements for specific facilities, and joint efforts and projects with other communities. Mayor Roe
advised that his preference would be not to pursue establishment of a Park Board further, but to
seriously look at those opportunities.
Mayor Roe noted that the City was now making significant strides in addressing previously
inadequate funding of Park & Recreation maintenance and infrastructure needs, especially in getting
those CIP needs out over a twenty-year span. While that process needed to continue improving,
Mayor Roe opined that part of his response was based on the need to continue those efforts and
recognize them in the overall funding picture. Mayor Roe stated that he liked the idea of meeting
more often, and suggested that regarding the CIP projections, the natural resources component was
an excellent place to address those community needs and program them accordingly.
Overall, Mayor Roe stated that his response would be to use the tools already available and to the
best of our ability. In terms of a future City Council not being as responsive to Park & Recreation
needs, Mayor Roe opined that they needed to be held accountable by the community as they served
or sought to serve on the City Council, especially in recognizing how parks & recreation aspects fit
into the overall community and were not a second-class portion of the City ofRoseville.
Regarding unification efforts, Councilmember McGehee opined that parks was an important part of
the community and should be considered an essential service, and planning for its needs was an
integral part of the City, not off on its own. Councilmember McGehee also supported the idea of joint
powers agreements, especially for the southwest portion of Roseville, who frequent the Falcon
Heights community park system, given its location directly across the street, and a way to address
that neighborhood?s needs rather than expending funds to acquire asmall and inadequate space in
Roseville for that area. However, Councilmember McGehee noted that Roseville residents had no
way to access that building, and it may be nice to be able to do so to provide a meeting space for
residents in southwest Roseville.
Chair Holt wanted to ensure that the tone of joint meetings of the Commission and City Council were
not intended to be "us" against "you," and stated his intent to change that perspective, since the
Commission saw itself as an extension of and working for the City Council, given the City Council?s
limited time and busy agendas dissuading their ability to delve into major issues to any great depth.
Chair Holt noted that the City Council tasked the Commission to research this, which they did at
length, and as Councilmember McGehee stated, considered itself to be an essential service to the
community and would like to be positioned as such and strongly valued throughout the community,
andexpressed the Commission?s interest in promoting that going forward.
Commissioner Stoner stated that one of his concerns in the current system was about transparency.
From his perspective, and using the community center as an example, Commissioner Stoner noted
that the City Council had asked the Commission to survey the community for what they wanted, and
they wanted many things, which had been reported back to the City Council; and based on the other
financial needs of the City, the City Council said "No, it costs too much money." At that point, the
Commission went back to the drawing board to streamline the proposal and determine what could be
eliminated. However, then the taxpayer doesn?t like spending money on a community center and
tells the City Council that, while the other side talks to the Commission with theirdesire to have a
center. Under that scenario, Commissioner Stoner questioned where the transparency was in that
process, opining that it would be better to have all those discussions contained in one place where
both sides were engaged versus a back and forth dialogue. Also, Commissioner Stoner also noted
the many issues covered on a City Council agenda that limited dialogue, in addition to half of the
year being devoted to the annual budget and levy process, further eliminating timely discussions and
creating more problems with transparency. Commissioner Stoner spoke in support of a "one stop
shop," that allow all voices to be heard and identify a specific pool of money to be spend on Parks &
Recreation programs and services, and the need to then parethings back with public comment on
what was kept or what was out, which would serve to keep the community happy to know that
everyone wouldn?t get everything they wanted.
With additional comments regarding transparency, Chair Holt concurred that it was key, and the
desire of the Commission was to make the process even more transparent to the public, and that
transparency was a big issue that he felt a Park Board could address from that perspective versus
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=1785&PREVIEW=YES
Roseville, MN - Official Website
the current Commission, allowing the public to see annually what was being appropriated to the Park
Board. Chair Holt assured Councilmembers that their recommendation was not intended as acontrol
issue, but simply to make things more transparent to the public, with the control obviously remaining
at the City Council level, with the Park Board focused on maintaining that essential service that was
valued by all.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she didn't disagree with the transparency issue; but with
previous engagement issues, she remained concerned that some decision-making would be made at
the Park Board level with an empty room versus a more publicly perceived City Council meeting.
Councilmember Laliberte advised that she needed to make that connection even though she wasn?t
confident all the engagement and communication components had been addressed sufficiently.
Specific to their research about a Park Board, Commissioner Doneen noted that they varied
throughout the state, along with their duties which were established by the City Council, and asked
that this be given consideration as well, if there were specific concerns or aspects that the City
Council wanted to remain involved in. Commissioner Doneen noted that it wasn?t a ?one fits all?
aspect for aPark Board, and the City Council could decide what was needed and which areas would
be more of a focus of the Park Board or for the City Council.
Councilmember McGehee expressed appreciation of the Commission?s work and expressed
understanding of the transparency issue; reiterating her support for a referendum on this and
ultimate disappointment that it was not done. Councilmember McGehee stated that she saw that as
an important engagement tool to educate the public before they went to the polls, similar to the City
Hall/Public WorksBuilding referendum, with changes made to the original plan as part of that
process, and openly discussed as part of the "People's City Hall." Councilmember McGehee
expressed her strong support of that process, but was unsure how to fit that into the operation of a
Park Board. From her perspective with large expenditures of public funds, Councilmember McGehee
opined that it was critical to have a referendum to engage citizens and their opportunity to weigh in
later.
Mayor Roe noted that a referendum was required and clearly outlined by state statute for bonding in
some circumstances, and that was the determining factor, and referendums were not based on the
amount of money proposed to be spent.
Specific to establishment of a Park Board, Mayor Roe opined that it could solve things; but
consideration of a community center was a specific project and there were ways available to solve
funding issues without a Park Board.
In conclusion, Mayor Roe suggested discussion continue at the next joint meeting, with the
consensus of the City Council to schedule joint meetings quarterly.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:48 p.m.
c.Receive Community Survey Results
Communications Manager Garry Bowman provided summary results of the community survey
conducted in April of 2014, and as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014. Mr. Bowmannoted that
this was a scientific telephone survey of 400 Roseville residents, divided into four quadrants: north or
south of Highway 36 and east or west of Snelling Avenue. Mr. Bowman noted that those delineations
may have somewhat skewed results due to heavier residential and/or commercial areas. Mr.
Bowman advised that the demographic and age mix of the survey closely matched the 2010 census.
Mr. Bowman presented the key survey takeaways, with the presentationMr. Bowman advised that, if
interested, the Morris Leatherman firm would be happy to do a complete review of the survey as an
alternative ?brown bag? lunch for staff, the City Council and interested members of the public; or at
a future City Council meeting at the discretion of the City Council. Mr. Bowman advised that the firm
would be providing an Executive Summary within the next few months that would further analyze
results.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, TABLING this discussion for a future City Council Work session.
CouncilmemberWillmus began to move to table this discussion to a future City Council work session.
Atthe request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bowman advised that he was preparing a news
release with attachments for Tuesday morning, June 10, 2014 for the City's website and other
sources.
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=1785&PREVIEW=YES
Community center
Many parks users and residents noted their interest
źƓ ğ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ĭĻƓƷĻƩ źƭ ƓƚƷ ƓĻǞΓƷŷğƷ źƷ ŷğƭ
been a topic of discussion for more than 25 years.
The parks and recrea on system master planning
process con ŋ rmed the level of interest in this kind
of facility and directed e orts toward:
· ar cula on of the kind of facility desired;
· de ŋ ni on of a desired program;
· iden ŋ ca on of site loca on parameters and
a preferred site; and
· genera ƚƓ ƚŅ ğ ƦƩĻƌźƒźƓğƩǤ ƭźƷĻ ͻ ŋ Ʒͼ ŅƚƩ ƷŷĻ
community center on the preferred site.
The Ci zens Advisory Team devoted an en re
mee ng to the community center, and followed
up with a review of ini al direc ons. They do not
see this as solely a recrea on center or ŋ eld house,
A concept for the community center was tested on a site that includes Veterans Park, and linking to the existing
and were interested in blending arts and cultural
Civic Center campus. Much work remains, and signi ϱ icant evolution of the program and the concept layout should
ac vi es and mee ng rooms with ac ve recrea on
be expected. Maintaining a process similar to the one used in this master plan is viewed as an essential part of the
spaces. They see this facility as a place of gathering
next steps in de ϱ ining a community center that serves the Roseville community.
that engenders a greater spirit of community,
not simply a place to swim or play basketball.
Ul mately, the CAT focused on a concept of an all
ages social and recrea on center, with a strong
orienta on to families.
The CAT highlighted a rather expansive list of
ac vi es that might be included. While they did
not wish to preclude program components, it
was understood that site constraints and budget
limita ons, neither of which were dealt with during
A more aggressive program for the community center
was also explored. No conclusions were reached on the
design or the program elements during the master plan,
but it was clear that residents who were engaged in
this process were interested in pursuing the community
center as a part of their parks and recreation system.
their discussions, would be a factor in re ŋ nement of · arts center;
the program. Program elements iden ŋ ed include:· teen center;
· senior center;
Interior components· mee ng rooms;
· recrea on pool (zero-depth entry, water · license center;
slide);· co ee shop; and
· compe on pool and diving well;· ŋ re sta on.
· youth gymnasium;
· three to ŋ ve court gymnasium;Exterior components
· interior ice sheet and training center;· recrea on pool (zero-depth entry, lazy river,
· ŋ tness center;youth pool);
· climbing wall;· informal play area;
· indoor play structure;· large outdoor natural area; and
· performing arts center;· parking.
Early vision ideas suggested a community center that
would include a range of activities oriented to all ages
and, especially, to children.
Some components, such as including a Fire Sta on city and rela ve to the parks and recrea on system.
or a License Center, look to the poten al of co-Desired loca ons would meet these parameters:
loca ng city facili es with other func ons of the
community center. No conclusions were reached · centrally-located within Roseville;
by the CAT about whether these uses aligned with · located on or very near a major community
the overall idea of the community center, but street;
importantly, the CAT believed they should remain a · parcel no less than ten acres;
part of the development program and that, if they · visually prominent from a primary street;
could be accommodated, they would not interfere · accessible from current or planned trail or
with the goals for the community center.sidewalk;
· capacity to accommodate other community
Discussions with the CAT also were directed to func ons, depending on the selected site;
considera ons about the loca on, both within the · capacity to support other goals of the city,
including economic development goals; andfor program and loca on, the community center
· not adjacent to single family residen al, or remains an idea requiring further study.
capable of suppor ng su cient transi on to
adjacent single family residen al.The master plan advocates for a process that
takes certain steps to carry the community center
Applying these parameters to a map of Roseville idea forward. Key tasks might be rolled into a
led to the conclusion that a community center on ͻƦƩĻƌźƒźƓğƩǤ ķĻƭźŭƓͼ ƦƩƚĭĻƭƭͲ ğƓķ ƒźŭŷƷ źƓĭƌǒķĻʹ
the Civic Campus site would be preferred. Several
ͻƷĻƭƷ ŋ Ʒͼ ƭƉĻƷĭŷĻƭ ǞĻƩĻ ƦƩĻƦğƩĻķ Ʒƚ ķĻƒƚƓƭƷƩğƷĻ · re ŋ ning the program of desired components;
possible con ŋ gura ons, and the test revealed that · preparing a concept level design for the
accommoda on of the full program of ac vi es facility and the site;
iden ŋ ed during this master planning process the · es ma ng the costs of construc on AND
ƓĻĻķ Ʒƚ ƩĻƌƚĭğƷĻ ƷŷĻ ĭźƷǤƭ ƒğźƓƷĻƓğƓĭĻ ŅğĭźƌźƷǤ opera ng the facility;
became apparent. While each alterna ve impacted · iden fying poten al sources of funding for
the Civic Campus site in di erent ways (for instance, construc on; and
causing the reloca on of exis ng facili es or the · framing a schedule for implementa on.
need to acquire addi onal land), these preliminary
studies con ŋ rmed for the CAT that a community
center on the Civic Campus site is possible. It
should be noted that these studies were directed to
an assessment of what might ŋ t, not at a de ŋ ni ve
design. Adjustments to the desired program were
necessary in each alterna ve considered, and as
further planning occurs, it should be expected that
program re ŋ nements are a necessary piece of the
design and explora on process.
This master plan concludes that a community
center would be a desirable component in Roseville.
Input con ŋ ƩƒĻķ ƷŷğƷ źƷ źƭ ķĻƭźƩĻķ ĬǤ ƩĻƭźķĻƓƷƭΓźƓ
fact, a er trails and connec vity, a community
center is the facility most o en cited as a desired
addi on. No es mates were generated for the cost
of the facility, and other than stated preferences
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
PARKS AND RECREATION RENEWAL PROGRAM
PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT
October 2, 2014
PROJECT NAMESTART STATUSCOMMENTS
DATE
A.BUILDING
REPLACEMENT/SITE
Lexington Park 5/201475% complete Open HousePlannedfor
December, 2014
Sandcastle Park 6/201465% complete Open House Plannedfor
December, 2014
Villa Park6/201550% complete Open House Plannedfor
December, 2014
Autumn Grove Park9/201410% complete Open House Plannedfor
January, 2015
Oasis Park 9/2014Building Open House Plannedfor
January, 2015
Demolished
Rosebrook Park 9/2014Site prepared to Open House Plannedfor
January, 2015
demo bldg.
B.SHELTER REMODEL
CP FOR Parks9/201425% completeFall completion planned
CP Foundation 9/201425% completeFall completion planned
CP Ballfields 9/2014Fall completion planned
SKATING CENTER
C.
REPAIRS
Paintingof Exterior 8/201490 % complete
Replace exterior doorson Arena Ordered To be installed 10/2014
Block Work Reviewing quotes
Vestibule Improvements Finalizing plans
D.HANC
Exterior Work 6/201490% completeOctober Completion
Interior Work 11/20142/2015 completion
Boardwalk 11/2014Spring 2015completion
E.BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Villa Park 7/2014Fall 2014 installation
F.LIGHTING SYSTEMS
REPLACEMENT
Lake Bennett Trail 6/201490% complete
Courts in conjunction w/ projectSee courts
Autumn Grove Park rink lightsInstall fall 2014
Lexington Park rink lights90% completeInstall fall 2014
Villa Park rink lightsInstall fall 2014
1
PROJECT NAMESTART STATUSCOMMENTS
DATE
Sandcastle Park rink lights Install fall 2014
G.COURT
REFURBISHMENT/SITE
Acorn Park 2015Resurface only
Autumn Grove Park 10/2014
Bruce Russell Park
Evergreen Park
Howard Johnson Tennis Court 7/201480% Complete TBC in fall 2014
Pocahontas Park Tennis Court 7/201480% Complete TBC in fall 2014
Sandcastle Park Fall 2014
H.FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
CP Victoria #2,4, 5, & 68/2014??????Fall 2014 completion
CP Victoria #1 & 3 2015 project
Evergreen Park # 1, 2 (west)4/20152015 project
Evergreen Park # 3,48/20152015 project
CP Legion 2015 project
I.IRRIGATION
IMPROVEMENTS
Acorn Park Reproposing in process
Autumn Grove Park Reproposing in process
CP Dale Street Reproposing in process
CP Lexington Reproposing in process
CP Victoria Started with in house staff
Evergreen ParkReproposing in process
Langton Lake Park Reproposing in process
LexingtonPark Started within house staff
Rosebrook Park Reproposing in process
J.NATURAL RESOURCES
Grants $ in grants applied for
1.Interpretive Signage
All Parks Core Project
2.Lake Restoration
CP Lexington Grant Approach
3. Native Landscaping
Autumn Grove Grant Approach
4. Pond Buffer Restoration
Keller Mayflower ParkGrant Approach
Howard Johnson Park Grant Approach
5.Prairie Reconstruction
CP Dale Street EastCore Project
Acorn Park Core Project
6.Prairie/Savanna Restoration
Reservoir Woods Core Project
2
PROJECT NAMESTART STATUSCOMMENTS
DATE
Applewood Overlook Grant Approach
7.Shoreline Restoration
CP LexingtonCore Project
Langton Lake ParkCore Project
Reservoir WoodsGrant Approach
Oasis Park Core Project
Willow Pond Park Core Project
8.Stream Restoration
Oasis Park Grant Approach
9.Water Quality Improvements
CP Dale East Grant Approach
10. Wetland Restoration
CP Dale EastGrant Approach
CP North Grant Approach
CP Victoria East Grant Approach
Langton Lake Park Core Project
Reservoir Woods ParksCore Project
Villa Park Core Project
Ladyslipper Park Core Project
Acorn Park Grant Approach
Willow Pond Park Grant Approach
Owasso Hills ParkGrant Approach
Pocahontas Park Grant Approach
Valley Park Grant Approach
11. Woodland/Forest Restoration
CP Dale East Core Project
CP Lexington Core Project
CP North Grant Approach
CP Victoria East Grant Approach
Langton Lake Park Grant Approach
Reservoir Woods Park Core Project
Villa Park 9/29/14Core Project
Ladyslipper Park Grant Approach
Oasis Park Grant Approach
Acorn Park Core Project
Applewood Park Grant Approach
Willow Pond ParkGrant Approach
Materion Park Grant Approach
Cottontail Park Grant Approach
Pioneer Park Grant Approach
Pocahontas Park Grant Approach
Valley Park Grant Approach
Tamarack Park Grant Approach
Rosebrook Park Grant Approach
Autumn Grove Park Grant Approach
3
PROJECT NAMESTART STATUSCOMMENTS
DATE
Woodhill Park Grant Approach
Evergreen Park Grant Approach
Owasso Hills Park Grant Approach
K.DISC GOLF COURSE
Improvements Fall 20142014 & 2015 project
L.PATHWAYS/SIDEWALKS
County B2 and Victoria 75% complete10/2014 completion
County B 75% complete10/2014 completion
VARIOUS PARKS
Pocahontas Park 90% complete10/2014 completion
Howard Johnson Park90% complete10/2014 completion
Langton Lake Park 50% complete
Upper Villa Park 2015 project
Mapleview Park 2015 project
Evergreen Park 2015 project
M. PLAYGROUNDS Community build
emphasis
Acorn Park Fall 2014 Community build
10/25/2014
Bruce Russell Park 2015 project
CP Lexington 2015 project
CP Victoria West 2015 project
CP Victoria East-Ballfields Fall 201395% complete
Howard Johnson Park SpringComplete Community build
2014
Langton Lake Park at C2Summer 95% complete
2014
Fall 201475 % complete Community build
Langton Lake Park at
Ballfields
Mapleview Park 2015 project
Materion Park Spring Complete Community build
2014
Oasis Park 2015 project
Tamarack Park
Upper Villa Park 2015 project
N.PROPERTY
ACQUISITION
Hamline and Lydia –Purchase Due diligence period
Moundsview property agreement extended until end of year
authorized 2014
SW Roseville
4
PROJECT NAMESTART STATUSCOMMENTS
DATE
Green-project underway
Orange –prep work being done
Red-not started
Purple-complete
TBC= To Be Completed
5
IN THE LOOP
September 8, 2014
Roseville Parks and Recreation Renewal Program
Lexington Park
The City of Roseville has hired Knutson Oasis Park &
Construction to replace six existing Rosebrook Park
park buildings and remodel three picnic a construction fence has been
shelters at Central Park. installed and demolition and
construction will begin in the
New Park Buildings
upcoming weeks
Lexington Park
Autumn Grove Park
building shell is complete and
scheduled to start this week
throughout September
Picnic Shelters
Villa Park
Sandcastle Park
Central Park - Victoria West &
building shell is scheduled to be
Central Park - Dale West
complete by the end
work has started on the repair of
of September
the foundations
Villa Park
foundation have been completed
shelters will be painted this fall
and framing is ongoing
Central Park - Victoria East
architectural drawings are
complete which increases the
storage capacity of the shelter
Central Park - Victoria West
Contacts
Mark Custer Micah Vainikka Lonnie Brokke Jeff Evenson RLA
Project ManagerProject EngineerDirector of Parks and Recreation Parks Superintendent
763.525.3007 763.525.3082 651.792.7006 651.792.7107
mcuster@knutsonconstruction.commvainikka@knutsonconstruction.comlonnie.brokke@ci.roseville.mn.usjeff.evenson@ci.roseville.mn.us